The Many Faces of Role-Playing Games PDF

International Journal of Role-Playing - Issue 1
The Many Faces of Role-Playing Games

Popular Abstract - Role-playing games have evolved into many forms in their thirty-year history. From the
traditional pen-and-paper form, that originated with Dungeons and Dragons, with a group of friends
playing around a table, to large live-action game, with hundreds of people acting out their assumed roles.
The first computer role-playing games appeared over twenty-five years ago and massively multi-player
role-playing games, such as World of Warcraft are now one of the most popular genres of digital games.
Despite this diversity players at least seem to think they know when something is a role-playing game.
When players, writers and game designers say this is a role-playing game there are no problems, they
all seem to know what each other means, what is and is not a role-playing game. Yet there is no commonly
accepted definition of the form. Understandable, perhaps, given the diversity, but the implicit agreement
about its use means that there may well be some common underlying features shared by the various
examples.

Hampering any attempt to understand what makes a game a role-playing game is the subtle
divide between role-playing and role-playing game. Role-playing can take in many places, not all of them
games (such as ritual, social activities, therapy, etc). This means that definitions of the role-playing activity
are not that useful in separating role-playing games from other games. In this paper we start from the
position that the players are correct: they know what a role-playing game is. By examining a range of roleplaying games some common features of them emerge. This results in a definition that is more successful
than previous ones at identifying both what is, and what is not, a role-playing game.
Michael Hitchens
Macquarie University
Australia
michaelh@ics.mq.edu.au
ABSTRACT
Role-playing games have grown and evolved into a
large number of forms in the last thirty years,
spanning digital as well as non-digital media.
They demonstrate a wide variety in the number of
participants, style of play and the formal and
informal systems that govern them. Despite this
diversity players at least seem to think they know
when something is a role-playing game. Yet there is
no commonly accepted definition which both
captures games generally accepted as role-playing
games and distinguishes them from other, similar,
games which begs the question, whether roleplaying games are united by anything more than a
colloquial name. Additionally, research involving
these games is hampered by lack of a widely
accepted definition of what constitutes a roleplaying game, as it is then not even possible to
clearly delineate the subject of such research. In
Anders Drachen
IT University of Copenhagen
Denmark
drachen@itu.dk
this paper various example of role-playing game

are examined in an attempt to identify the defining
set of characteristics of these games. On that basis
a definition for them is proposed which is
hopefully more successful at separating roleplaying games from other, similar, game forms.
1.INTRODUCTION
Role-playing games, in their modern form, are
generally held to have originated with Dungeons
and Dragons in the 1970s (Mason 2004). Since then
they have evolved into a wide variety of styles and
media, including both digital and non-digital
examples and with player numbers in an
individual game ranging from a single person to
the thousands. The differences between these
forms can be so extensive that players of one may
dismiss another as not being a role-playing game at
all (Dormans 2006).
3
Take, as an example of both the similarities and

differences, the current Dungeons and Dragons rule
set and its embodiment in the Neverwinter Nights
series of computer games. The two have many
elements in common. They share a basic setting
(the world of Neverwinter Nights being one of the
published backgrounds of Dungeons and Dragons)
and the mechanics of the digital game are a very
accurate transfer of the non-digital rules into a
digital form. They also differ in fundamental ways,
the most obvious being the existence of a graphical
interface for the computer game. Less obviously,
Neverwinter Nights, in common with other digital
role-playing games, is unbending in its application
of the rules and outcomes. In a non-digital roleplaying game there is at least the opportunity for
flexibility with (typically) a game master who can
choose which rules to use when and whether the
results of those rules are to be applied unaltered or
moderated in some form. More subjectively there
may be argument about whether the play of a
given game involves actual role-playing or not.
The differences between role-playing game forms
are not simply explained by the digital/non-digital
divide. For example, Pen and Paper and Live
action role-play are two categories often applied
to non-digital role-playing games. The former
usually consists of a small group sitting around a
table, using verbal description for most of the game
play, while the latter can consist of 1000s of
players, using both verbal and physical enaction
techniques of game play. These are not the only
sub-categories that have been used in describing
types of role-playing games, others include
freeform, tabletop, systemless and
pervasive. Whether these are truly separate and
distinct categories is debatable, but they all enjoy
some colloquial use.
Matching this wide variety, researchers have
approached role-playing games from a number of
perspectives. Some have documented the history of
one or more forms of role-playing games, for
example Koster (2002), and Mason (MAS04).
Mackay (2001) examined them from the
performance point of view. Copier (2005) relates
non-digital role-playing games to their place in the
Dutch fantasy subculture and their relation to
ritual. It is also worth noting the use she makes of
role-playing games in discussing the concept of the
magic circle, an example of the study of roleplaying games being used to examine more general
gaming concepts. Fine (1983) uses a participant
observation approach to discuss them mainly in
the context of the interactions between the players.
Montola (2007) describes the application of role-
playing games in pervasive gaming format.

Tychsen et al. (2007) examine the changes in player
enjoyment and engagement between some of the
various forms of role-playing games. For Dormans
(2006) they are an opportunity to take some
theoretical concepts and notions developed for
computer games and use them to study roleplaying games.
Outside the academic sphere, some members of the
role-playing community itself have attempted to
analyse these games. Such self-examination has
been extensive, for example in the internet venues
of The Forge and RPGnet, but generally lacks
connections to wider game theory. It is worth
noting though, as Copier (2005, p.4) does that
Some researchers take part in both the academic
and the players discourse on RPG theory.
Notable work originating from the role-playing
community includes discussions on game play
style, for example (Hetland 2004) and (Edwards
2001), and examination of the place of narrative
and story-telling in role-playing games, for
example (Henry 2003), (Kim 2003) and (Padol
1996), amongst other topics.
While all these studies, and others, are obviously
highly varied in their approach to role-playing
games, it is notable that they generally take a
circumspect and/or highly inclusive approach to
defining what it is they are discussing. It is both
interesting and understandable that many authors
dealing with role-playing games shy away from
the question of defining exactly what a role-playing
game is. For example, while Copier (2005) offers
some discussion of the forms of in which roleplaying games exist, the activities involved and the
relation between role-playing games and well
known definitions of games in general, she does
not tackle the question of exactly what is a roleplaying game. Instead, the section in her paper
entitled Role-Playing Games deals with their
history, the demographics of Dutch players and the
history of the study of role-playing games, without
touching on exactly what a role-playing is.
Many authors that do address the question posit
deliberately wide definitions. They may define the
act of role-playing (as opposed to a role-playing
game). Typical of these is (Henriksen 2002, p.44):
[role-play is] a media, where a person,
through immersion into a role and the world
of this role, is given the opportunity to
participate in and interact with the contents
of this world.
A more extreme example is that of Pettersson (2006,
p.101), for whom roleplaying is the art of
4
experience, and making a roleplaying game means

creating experiences. As noted by Stenros and
Hakkarainen (2003, p.61) many existing definitions
of role-playing and role-playing games have been
largely normative, not descriptive. This is not to
say that such efforts are without value. The roleplaying experience is undoubtedly one in which
immersion, the assumption of a role and the
involvement of the player are central. The player
experience is, however, not the same as the activity
in which they partake.
Some authors have taken a more descriptive
standpoint, for example (Stenros & Hakkarainen
2003, p.56):
A role-playing game is what is created in
the interaction between players or between
player(s) and gamemaster(s) within a
specified diegetic framework. [A] roleplaying game requires four things, a
gamemaster, a player, interaction, and a
diegetic framework.
Again, this is a rather broad approach to the
question. Many games not normally considered
role-playing games are covered by it and similar
definitions. This arises from the focus of the
authors, which can be seen in their statement We
have created a model that includes all activities
that we recognize as role-playing. Note that they
refer to role-playing, not role-playing games. While
this inclusivity is commendable when it comes to
understanding the general activity of role-playing,
it does not help in separating role-playing games
from other game types. The same paper, for
example, discusses the possibilities of role-playing
in Risk and Monopoly, games not generally
regarded as role-playing games.
It could even be argued that, given the extreme
variety of form displayed by role-playing games,
touched on above, and the possibilities for roleplaying outside of role-playing games, that a
general definition can either not be arrived at or
would be too vague to be useful. However, the
extensive use made of the term role-playing
games by these authors, and many others, implies
that it refers to something and that a potentially
identifiable object, the role-playing game, exists.
Otherwise the use of the term could only be
considered confusing at best. As discussed below
these proposed definitions have significant
shortcomings.
That a certain type of game exists which can be
labelled role-playing game is implied by the
widespread use of the term. Players appear to
believe they know whether or not a game is a role-
playing game. If the accuracy of such

identifications is accepted then a definition of a
role-playing game may perhaps be arrived at by
analysis of the different forms in an attempt to
identify the common features, if any. It is also
important to note that role-playing exists outside
role-playing games in various social and cultural
arenas, in education, training, etc. The broader
activity of role-playing is not the topic being
discussed here, instead what is examined is the
group of games collectively, and colloquially,
termed role-playing games. Whether any of these
games involve actual role-playing is another
question, as, in many cases, identifying roleplaying is extremely subjective and notoriously
difficult to achieve agreement about.
The topic of this paper is role-playing games, not
role-playing. Significant discussions exist of the
role-playing activity, both in gaming and nongaming spheres. But as role-playing does not need
a gaming context in which to exist, definitions of
role-playing do not provide a conclusive answer to
what constitutes a role-playing game. This paper
addresses the latter question be examining the
nature of those games, which provide the context
for the role-playing that occurs within them.
2. EXISTING DEFINITIONS OF ROLEPLAYING AND ROLE-PLAYING GAMES

As noted above there have been a number of
attempts at defining role-playing and/or roleplaying games. While they are, understandably,
varied, they can be (roughly) divided into two
broad categories those which focus on the process
and experience of role-playing and those which
include descriptive elements about the game and
game-play itself. These, to an extent, correspond to
the normative and descriptive categories identified
by Stenros and Hakkarainen (2003), although some
of the definitions contain elements of both and
their placement here into one of the two categories
may be considered arbitrary. Such placement is not
intended to be definitive, but instead a means of
discussing current efforts at definitions. While
space prohibits an exhaustive examination of the
definitions offered in the literature, it is worth
reviewing a (hopefully) representative sample.
2.1 Process and Experience Based Definitions
One of the earliest definitions of role-playing, from
a time when even many role-playing games
themselves did not address the question, is that of
Lortz (1979), who defines a role-playing game as
any game which allows a number of players to
5
assume the roles of imaginary characters and

operate with some degree of freedom in an
imaginary environment. The emphasis here on
players assuming roles and the freedom with
which they interact with the game world is a theme
that later writers would return to in more detail.
While it places the player and their experience at
the centre of the role-playing activity it only
conveys a sketchy impression at best of the games
themselves.
This tendency can also be seen in (Padol 1996)
where a role-playing game is defined as one that
Allows people to become simultaneously both the
artists who create a story and the audience who
watches the story unfold. This story has the
potential to become a personal myth, shaped to
meet the needs of its creators. This is an attractive
definition, at least to those who wish their
characters to experience interesting stories (which
is at the very least a significant minority of roleplayers) and conveys a useful perspective on the
role-playing experience. Its emphasis on story,
which is clearly seen by the author as something
created in the role-playing activity, but not as the
whole of that activity itself, does not tell us a great
deal about the context in which those stories are
created. Read literally, any game with story
elements where the participants have some input
into the unfolding of that story, could be said to fit
within this definition. It is doubtful that such a
simple-minded interpretation is intended, and
instead there appears to be an implicit assumption
about what a role-playing game is, the definition
telling us more about what happens in such a
game. Its usefulness in separating role-playing
games from other game types, on a structural or
descriptive basis, is therefore limited.
A more general definition, without the emphasis on
story, is that of Henriksen (2002), quoted above.
Again, this sidesteps the question of the means by
which and limitations upon the interaction that the
players have with the game world occurs. This
should not be seen as a particular criticism, as roleplaying, not role-playing games, are being defined.
Role-playing can, and does, occur outside of roleplaying games. In fact, one of the earliest
definitions of role-playing pre-dates role-playing
games by about two decades, that of Mann (1956, p.
227):
A role-playing situation is here defined as a
situation in which an individual is explicitly
asked to take a role not normally his own, or
if his own in a setting not normal for the

enactment of the role.
As these definitions are not directly addressing
role-playing games it is understandable they have
limited utility in identifying such games.
One similar definition which does mention games
is that of Montola (2007, p.179). Again the attempt
is not to define role-playing games, but to offer a
definition of the role-playing activity (italics as in
original):
I see roleplaying as an interactive process of
defining and re-defining an imaginary game
world, done by a group of participants
according to a recognised structure of power.
One or more or participants are players, who
portray anthropomorphic characters that delimit
the players power to define.
While it is almost certainly unfair, given its stated
intention, we can examine how useful this
definition is in explicitly categorising role-playing
games; the word game is, after all, included. An
interactive process of defining and re-defining an
imaginary game world could apply to any game,
as any game, even the most abstract, has a game
world which the participants alter through their
game play. The phrase recognised structure of
power is likely meant to refer to the game master
function and the variety of forms that can take, but
does not define how power within the game is
structured or how it is recognised or indeed
whether the power structure may or may not be
egalitarian. It should also be noted that software
and a player could be considered to form a group
of participants, with a power structure, so this
covers all digital games. This definition could then
cover a range of digital games, for example first
person shooters and three-dimensional platform
games, as well as board games such as Talisman and
Squad Leader which represent individual characters
within the game. It is not likely that this is actually
intended and again this definition has much more
to say about the role-playing process than roleplaying games.
There are other definitions which fit broadly within
the category discussed here. For example, that of
Pettersson (2006) (quoted above), Pohjola (2004, p.
89): Role-playing is immediated character
immersion, Pohjola (2003, p.34): Role-playing is
immersion to an outside consciousness (a
character) and interacting with its surroundings,
Mkel et al. (2005, p.207) role-playing is defined
Indeed, it is debatable whether a role-playing game has to involve role-playing at all.
as any act in which an imaginary reality is

concurrently created, added to and observed and
Edwards (2001), which discuss the requirements
for the role-playing activity rather than the
definition of a role-playing game.
It should be noted that in all these definitions it is
role-playing, not role-playing games, which
occupies the central position. It is understandable
then that, while valuable within their chosen scope,
they are less useful when it comes to identifying
role-playing games as a separate category. As noted
in several of them the act of role-playing may occur
in a wide range of venues, including games not
recognised as role-playing games and even outside
a gaming context altogether.
As the focus of the current paper is to arrive at a
definition that can identify role-playing games as a
category within the broad spectrum of games, not
on the role-playing experience, we need to consider
other approaches.
2.2 Descriptive Based Definitions
There have been fewer attempts at descriptive
definitions of role-playing games then those of the
type discussed above. However, a number do exist.
Dormans (2006) gives a definition of role-playing
games by categorising them into four types, penand-paper, live-action, computer and massively
multiplayer, ostensibly on the basis of medium,
means and scale. However, on examination the
differences between the categories offered are
actually only on medium (pen-and-paper, liveaction and computer) and scale (pen-and-paper
and computer versus live-action and massively
multiplayer). It would be difficult to argue against
the proposition that many examples of role-playing
games fall into one or another of these categories.
However, the proposition that these categories are
sufficient is more contentious. There is, for
example, an implicit assumption about
quantitative measurement and random resolution
underlying the arguments presented. This can even
be seen even in the article title, which begins On
the Role of the Die and in the early statement I
will try to expose the role played by dice in these
games. Role-playing games exist which do not
require random quantitative resolution. In fact,
some do not require quantitative elements at all.
This is not a reference to the Amber diceless system
or similar rulesets which involve quantitative
assessment of character skills and abilities but not
random resolution. A form of role-playing game
which does not fit any of Dormans categories is
that known in Australian hobby role-playing
conventions as systemless. That this form,

described below, exists invalidates Dormans four
categories as a complete definition of role-playing
games. More fundamentally, Dormans
categorisation has limited usefulness as a complete
definition, as no attempt is made to analyse the
forms to discover if there is any underlying
commonality which could both group them
together and separate them from other game types.
If there are forms of role-playing game beyond is
four categories no guide is given as to how to
identify them. The definition therefore relies upon
its own a priori completeness.
Tychsen et al. (2006) provides a detailed analysis of
multi-player tabletop and digital role-playing
games, comparing the two forms. The analysis
describes both the process-aspects of play, as well
as providing an overview of the features shared
between role-playing games in general. While
fairly detailed, the discussion is explicitly stated as
not being complete. The reader is referred there for
the complete overview of the analysis, but in
summary it states that role-playing games all share
the following features:
At the heart of role-playing games, there is
an element of storytelling with rules, and
each game form provides unique ways of
expressing this feature.
Rules, multiple (at least two) participants
and is set in a fictional world, established
via the game premise: A shared
understanding among the participants of
the game setting, rules and similar game
framework issues.
Most of the game participants normally
control a character through which they
interact with the fictional world
There is usually a game master (or digital
system performing a similar function)
responsible for management of those
elements of the game and fictional world
outside direct control of the players.
Tychsen et al. (2006) also discuss the functions of
the game master and mention that the role of the
game master may not be fixed, but move amongst
the participants, and varies greatly in functionality
across role-playing game forms.
The problem with the list of shared features in
Tychsen et al. (2006) is that it appears to cover
games which are not normally considered roleplaying games. If it is allowed that some digital
games are role-playing games (which the authors
of the current paper do) then consider the firstperson shooter. Once role-playing games
are allowed to be digital than it must also be

further allowed that software may take on the role
of the game master. When looking at the list above,
it would appear that e.g. first-person shooters
would be considered role-playing games. They
have a fictional world, multiple participants (at
least one player and the game master/software)
and a character through whom the player interacts
with the game world. First-person shooters could
also be argued to contain or create stories during
play, notably games that specifically aim at creating
an interesting storyline, e.g. Deus Ex, System Shock
II and Bioshock.
It could be argued that the player does not roleplay a character in a classical FPS-style digital
game, however, it is important to note that the
player does have the potential role-play the
character but there would not be an in-game
effect of this role-playing (except potentially in
affecting some of the choices the player makes).
Many contemporary FPS-games include features
for solving conflicts in different ways e.g. violent
vs. non-violent solutions to problems in Bioshock or
Crysis. It could be argued that this provides a lowlevel form of role-playing potential to these games.
Yet such games, with a few exceptions, are rarely
considered or termed role-playing games. Some,
such as Deus Ex, are said to have role-playing
elements, but that is not the same as being a roleplaying game. Another game type that could be
argued to feature the same series of elements are
the three-dimensional platform games, such as Jak
and Daxter and Ratchet and Clank, which again are
not typically considered role-playing games.
Finally, Tychsen et al. (2006) point to the
importance of the role-playing element of roleplaying games, but also note that contrary to the
name, the act of role-playing is not a feature found
in all the games popularly titled role-playing
games. For example, digital role-playing games
often feature a comparatively limited ability for the
player to role-play their character. The authors do
not however provide a definition of when a player
can be said to be role-playing or not.
An essentially similar, if less detailed, definition is
given by Morgan (2002), which in summary, states
that players deal with an imaginary world, through
the medium of a character, and that there is a game
master who: adjudicates rules disputes; and:
guide[s] play much as a director would a movie.
It can be seen to also be problematic in terms of
identifying what and is not a role-playing game as
it what it covers conflicts with the generally

accepted usage of the term.
A slightly different approach is taken Mackay
(2001, p. 4) who defines role-playing games as
follows (italics as in original):
[A]n episodic and participatory story-creation
system that includes a set of quantified rules
that assist a group of players and a
gamemaster in determining how their fictional
characters spontaneous interactions are
resolved.
It does not mention a fictional world and focuses
on story-creation and interaction. It requires
quantified rules, which were noted above to be
unnecessary. Again, whole classes of digital games
not recognised as role-playing games fit the
definition. It could also be asked why the game
must be episodic. Many examples of short
games, which can be completed in a single session,
are known, particularly at non-digital role-playing
conventions. The prominence given to storycreation is also debatable, given the arguments
around the place of story and narrative within
games.
Another, often referenced, definition of a roleplaying game is that of Stenros and Hakkarainen
(2003), quoted above. In common with some of the
other definitions discussed here it mentions
players, game masters and interaction. However it
eschews mention of a game world in favour of
diegetic framework, which includes the game
world. The concept of diegesis is an extremely
useful in understanding what is happening within
a role-playing setting and how players approach
the act of role-playing. However, as it can apply
generally to any game form it is less useful in
separating out role-playing games.
Even the more detailed of the above definitions
reduce to a game, set in an imaginary world,
played by multiple participants, one or more of
whom has a special role, commonly termed the
game master, who controls aspects of the game
world outside the control of the remainder of the
participants, who typically control one or more
characters. The presence of a privileged participant
who controls aspects of the game world is hardly
an identifying element of role-playing games. As
well as the digital game forms mentioned above
consider for example, referees in competition figure
gaming, who may create the terrain upon which
battles are fought (i.e, the game world), interpret
rules issues and occasionally adjudicate outcomes.
In the words of [Ste03] Diegesis is what is true within the game world
This appears to meet the minimum requirements of

a game master, yet such games are not considered
role-playing games. Interestingly, though, it was
from such games that the original table-top roleplaying game, Dungeons and Dragons, was derived.
Which perhaps goes some way to proving the
relationship between the role-playing game master
and the figure gaming competition referee and that
the mere presence of such a participant is not
enough to make a game a role-playing game.
Most, and arguably all, of the definitions discussed
in this section are successful in that the games
commonly termed role-playing games meet their
requirements. Unfortunately, despite their
respective advantages, they are insufficiently
precise for use in deciding which games are roleplaying ones and which are not as they also
include within their scope games which are
generally not considered to be role-playing games
(or, in the case of Dormans (2006) do not cover
games which are and give no guidelines for
considering undecided cases).
3. ROLE-PLAYING GAME FORMS

From the above discussion it can be seen that we
do not currently have a definition of a role-playing
game (as opposed to the role-playing activity) that
both includes the set of games commonly
described as role-playing games, while at the same
time separating them out from other game forms.
As this has not been the intent of the work cited in
the above, this should not be taken as criticism.
However, attempting such a definition is useful as
it offers a different perspective on role-playing than
that offered by previous authors.
The concept of diegesis is extremely

useful in understanding what is
happening within a role-playing
setting and how players approach the
act of role-playing. However, as it can
apply generally to any game form it is
less useful in separating out
role-playing games.
A definition which specifically permits the
identification of a game as a role-playing game or
not, could possibly be developed based on analysis
of existing known examples, in an attempt to
identify any similarities.
The analysis presented here will consider the
following examples of role-playing games:
Pen-and-paper/table-top
Systemless
Live-action role-playing
Single Player digital
Massively Multi-Player Online
Freeform
Pervasive
This is not intended as an exhaustive list of all
forms of role-playing game, nor a claim that each is
significantly different to all the others. For
example, under some definitions Systemless could
be considered a sub-type of pen-and-paper, under
others a sub-type of live-action role-playing. For
present purposes that some of the above may be
closely related is however immaterial, what is
important is that the examples in the list, as a
whole, have been selected to ensure a coverage
across the breath of role-playing games to provide
a firm basis for developing a workable definition.
Some of the examples in the list are considerably
more widely played than others, but the intent is to
arrive at a definition that covers all role-playing
games, not simply the more popular ones.
Descriptions of some of the above have been given
elsewhere, for example by Dormans (2006), where
four of the listed forms are described. For
completeness, and ease of analysis, all seven are
described below, although some of the following
content differs minimally from the existing
literature
3.1 Pen-and-Paper/Table-Top
Pen-and-paper and table-top both refer to the
original form of role-playing game from the 1970s.
Players, usually numbering in the single figures, sit
around a table or occupy seating in the same room.
Typically all players except one play a single
character each and use that character to interact
with the game world. The remaining player,
variously termed dungeon master, game master or
storyteller, is responsible for the game world
beyond the players characters. The power balance
between players and game master may vary
between examples, and even within a particular
game, see Young (2005), and there may sometimes
be more than one game master, but the latter is
unusual. Play of the game typically involves verbal
description, either by the players giving their
characters actions or intentions, or by the game
master describing the results of actions or the
elements of the game world the players encounter.
This form makes extensive use of written materials,
9
including rules, play aids and the character

descriptions. The last, termed a character sheet,
usually describes the character in quantitative
terms, with perhaps some qualitative description of
the characters personality and history, with the
latter varying greatly in occurrence and extent. The
character sheet gives rise to the term pen-andpaper, although the information is often written
in pencil, not pen, to allow updating as the
character evolves. Players may interact with the
game world in any way that their characters, as
inhabitants of that world, are capable of and play
can potentially roam through any part of the game
world.
The pen-and-paper form, being the one from which
all others has originated, is well known and has
been discussed in detail elsewhere, for example by
Fine (1983), Mackay (2001) and Dormans (2006). In
the interests of space, the form has therefore not
been given as extensive an examination as some of
the other forms discussed below. A closely related
sub-variant, Systemless, is discussed in the next
section. This formdisplays characteristics not
highlighted in many previous descriptions of
small-group role-playing games.
3.2 Systemless
This game form, arising in the Australian roleplaying convention scene and elsewhere, is related
to the pen-and-paper form and to psychodrama.
The number and functions of participants is
typically the same as that for pen-and-paper,
although the use of multiple game masters with
substantial authorial control is more common. In
these games characters are described in purely
qualitative terms, by giving descriptions of their
history and personality. There is no quantitative (or
even pseudo-quantitative) definition of a
characters attributes or skills. Character
development is still possible, but is in terms of
personality and emotion rather than the skills,
attributes and levels typical of the pen-and-paper
form.
In Systemless play emphasis is placed much more
on enaction than description, players do not sit
around a table, but move around the game space
speaking as their character and portraying their
characters actions. The play of the game is the
interaction between the players (including the
game master) and the development of the
characters and story. Actions are resolved based on
the decisions of the game master, based purely on
their assessment of the situation, and without

reference to any quantitative character or world
description or any form of random resolution
mechanism. The possible range of player
interaction with the game world and the range of
play are the same as for the pen-and-paper form,
though the means of resolving actions with the
game world is markedly different, given the lack of
quantitative and random elements which
commonly feature in the pen-and-paper forms often in conjunction with the same means of
resolving actions in the game world as Systemless
play.
This form appears to fall outside the categories of
Dormans (2006), for, as Copier (2005, p.3) says:
Table-top or pen and paper role-play does not
involve any form of physical acting. While one
could argue that a definition of pen and paper roleplay could be given which includes such games, it
then becomes a definition simply based on the
number of participants, which tells us little, if
anything, about the nature of the activity so
categorised. Similarly, certain definitions of liveaction role-playing appear to include this form of
gaming, for example those of Gade (2003, p.67):
I define a larp as: An interactive medium
where one or more participants take on roles.
The roles interact with each other, and with
the surroundings and the world of the larp.
and Montola (2003, p.86):
Larp is a role-playing game, where the
actual physical reality is used to construct
diegeses, in addition to communication, both
directly and arbitrarily.
On the other hand some definitions of the border
between live-action role-playing and tabletop, such
as that of Lynch (2000), leave Systemless on the
tabletop side of the divide.
Regardless of whether Systemless is an example of
pen-and-paper, live-action or something else, its
eschewing of quantitative elements while
remaining a role-playing game is informative.
3.3 Live-Action Role-Playing
Live-action role-playing typically involves larger
numbers of participants than the preceding forms,
ranging from the dozens up to hundreds or even
thousands. Emphasis in these games is placed on
player enaction of the characters actions (similar
to Systemless play, although live-action roleplaying can feature rules for player interaction),
psychodrama; a method within group psychotherapy where the participants take roles in improvisational
dramatizations of emotionally charged situations, Psychodrama (2007)
10
costuming, props and setting. Real world locations,

such as castles, parklands and warehouses, are
used as the settings and are chosen to match the
game world setting as closely as possible. As with
the previous forms, participants are normally
either players or game masters, with the players
enacting a single character and the game masters,
of whom there must be a considerable number due
to the number of players, again controlling those
parts of the game world beyond the players
characters. There may also be players who are
assisting the game masters by carrying out preplanned actions, and so are not entirely acting at
their own discretion. There are examples, such as
some Scandinavian-based games, where attempts
have been made to break the traditional game
master-player boundary. In these games the
relationship between players and game masters is
fluid, changing over the course of the game
through various game contexts.
Character descriptions can contain quantitative
elements similar to the pen-and-paper format, but
are usually based on qualitative information (e.g.
personality, background) While player enaction is
emphasised, formal rule systems are commonly
used for determination of the outcome of many
character actions, e.g. in the Minds Eye Theatre
system, White Wolf (2005). The embodied nature of
play, together with the emphasis on props and
costume, allows players to have their characters
interact with the game world in extremely varied
and detailed ways. While the use of real world
settings may appear to limit the areas of the
imaginary game world which characters can
inhabit, the game masters are free to extend the
scope of play as they see fit.
3.4 Single Player Digital
The single player digital form of role-playing
game, Hallford and Hallford (2001) is derived
directly from the table-top form, and some
examples (such as Baldurs Gate, Neverwinter Nights
and Knights of the Old Republic) use digitised
versions of pen-and-paper rules. These games rely
on quantitative representations of the character,
with character development following the
quantitative improvement in skills and abilities
typical of pen-and-paper games. The most obvious
differences between the two forms are there being
only a single player, with the software taking on
the functions of the game master and the presence
of the visual, digital, representation of the game
world (Tychsen et al. 2006). A less obvious
difference is the strict enforcement of the rules by
the game software, whereas a human game master
has the option of which rules to enforce and

whether or not alter outcomes mandated by the
random resolution mechanism. The digital form
also limits the ways players can interact with the
game world. In a non-digital form the players can
interact with the game world in any way the game
master allows, with the game master improvising
resolution mechanisms if necessary. Digital forms
are limited to the interaction forms implemented
prior to play by the game designer. It should be
noted, though, that these often provide a
comparatively large range of choice compared to
other genres of digital games, including combat,
interaction with objects and verbal interaction with
non-player controlled inhabitants of the game
world. Players are likewise limited to those areas of
the game world for which the designers have
created graphical representations. However, this
space often represents a larger portion of the game
world than for most character/avatar based digital
games (possibly only matched by 3D platformers)
and players are generally free to revisit previously
encountered portions of the game world, unlike,
for example, most first-person shooters, where the
player is limited to the current level and cannot
revisit areas once the corresponding level is
complete.
In a non-digital form the players can

interact with the game world in any
way the game master allows - with the
game master improvising resolution
mechanisms if necessary - whereas
digital forms are limited to the
interaction forms implemented prior to
play by the game designer.
Variants of this form exist which allow a small
group of players, as in pen-and-paper games, e.g.
Dungeon Siege. A few examples, such as Vampire the
Masquerade: Redemption and Neverwinter Nights (I
and II), even allow a human game master.
However, the restrictions on the ways players
interact with the world, and the need for preexisting digital content limiting the accessible areas
of game world still apply. While a human game
master can allow more flexible action resolution
and interaction with the world, this with current
digital technology does not exceed what is possible
in non-digital forms.
3.5 Massively Multi-Player Online
The most obvious difference between this and the
previous category is the number of simultaneous
11
participants, with typical examples in the

thousands, e.g. Age of Camelot, Saga of Ryzom and
World of Warcraft. While the basic form of the game
is the same, with a graphical interface for current
examples (in contrast to the earlier text only
versions) and quantitative character development,
the sheer number of players gives rise to intricate
and varied patterns of play, based around the
social interaction possibilities with other human
players. They often provide geographically large
areas for players to explore, typically larger than in
the single player digital form. The range of possible
interactions with world the offer is the same as the
single player digital, with combat, object
interaction and verbal communication with nonplayer characters standard. However this latter is
of course complemented by the communication
with player characters, which can obviously be
much more extensive and nuanced than the very
limited dialogue options offered by software
controlled characters., as discussed by, for example,
Taylor (2006) and Duchenaut et al. (2006). It is also
worth noting that players can have multiple
characters in most examples of these games and
may play each such character for as long, or longer,
than in a typical pen and paper game. There is
potential for a much higher degree of attachment to
these characters by the players than in the single
player digital forms, which typically last 20 to 40
hours.
3.6 Freeform
The freeform style is reasonably well known in The
United Kingdom, USA and Australia. In many
ways it can be viewed as a specific form of the liveaction style, but is usually recognized among the
player community as an independent category of
role-playing game. Freeform is a form of live-action
game with a clearer emphasis on character
interaction in a more controlled environment than
is possible in large scale live-action games. There is
typically limited, if any, emphasis on combat.
Normally the number of players involved is much
larger than the table-top form, but less than is
typical for live-action and also places less emphasis
on setting, costume and prop. It tends to rely
heavily on inter-player communication and
negotiation and less on rules based action
resolution. Again multiple game masters are
required to handle the larger number of players
and while most play is set in a single physical
location, represented by the physical play space,
the game masters are free to extend this into
anywhere in the game world.
3.7 Pervasive
Pervasive and ubiquitous games are typically
digital games which extend the game play beyond
the computer screen. For example, where player
movement in the real world equates to avatar
movement in the game world, as in Botfighters.
Pervasive role-playing is slightly different, in that it
does not necessarily include a digital component.
Instead it is essentially an extension of the liveaction form. In the latter there are usually
boundaries (of various strength) defining which
parts of the real world are being used to represent
the game world. In pervasive role-playing these
boundaries are much weaker or even essentially
non-existent, to the extent that anything in the real
world, even people not playing the game, can take
on a significance for the play of the game. As any
part of the real world, or anything in it, can
potentially be part of the game, it is obvious that
the geographical range of, and the possible ways of
interacting with, the game world are extensive. In
most other ways this form resembles live-action
role-playing. For more detail see Montola (2007)
and Jonsson (2007).
4. FEATURES OF ROLE-PLAYING
GAMES
As can be seen from the above there is significant
variation amongst role-playing games, including
the mechanisms supporting game play and the
play styles that typify them. While this may make
it appear unlikely that a useful overarching
definition can be found there are also considerable
areas of similarity.
4.1 Character
All the examples discussed share a use of playercontrolled characters. One of the earliest examples
of a role-playing game including a self-definition,
Perrin et al. (1980, p.3) focuses on character,
defining a fantasy role-playing games as
A game of character development,
simulating the process of personal
development commonly called life
These characters are the primary (in most cases the
sole) means by which the players can interact with
the game world. The methods by which the
characters are defined vary, in some cases being
purely quantitative, in others extensively
qualitative and in others a mixture of the two, but
in all cases the characters are regarded as
individuals, with their own unique place in the
game world (some experimental Scandinavianproduced role-playing game modules have
12
experimented with replacing the typical character

with e.g. abstract concepts, such as a group of
emotions). This contrasts, for example, with the use
of characters in simulation based education and
training exercises, where characters are more often
described by their roles (teacher, medic, etc.) than
by reference to their individuality. The players are
able to effect, and influence, the development of
the game world through actions expressed via their
characters.
More than being merely character-based,
characters in role-playing games are in the vast
majority of cases capable of development, as noted
in the definition quoted above. Again this
development might be in quantitative, skill and
ability, terms or in qualitative personality terms.
While the form of the development might vary
widely between games it is always subject to at
least some player control. There might be skill
points which the player chooses to allocate,
specialisations to select or decisions made about
emotional changes. This separates role-playing
games from other games with character
development, but where that development is fixed
and pre-decided by the game designers, with
perhaps some limited choices by the player within
a defined framework. Pre-defined development is
seen, for example, in games where the character
obtains a new ability when a particular point in
play is reached, such as is often the case in 3D
platformers, or some adventure games, or which
demonstrate emotional change in the central
character, but where this is again under the
developers, not the players, control. It might be
contended that, in any game that is characterbased, the player may imbue their character with a
personality and develop that personality over the
play of the game. While this is true, a defining
feature of role-playing games is that they are
capable of reacting to changes in the character(s). The
game reacts to skill and ability changes. If the game
focuses on the personality of a character then when
that personality is changed, the game can react, in
the shape of the reactions of the other players (and
the rest of the game world, as expressed by the
game master). Even if the player of, for example, a
racing game imbues their character with a
personality and then changes that personality the
game will not be able to react as it is not designed
with this capacity (in fact, it would not be able to
react to the initial personality state either).
The above is not to argue that character
development must occur for a game to be a roleplaying game, only that it be possible within the
design of the game, offer some control to the player
and that the game will respond, in some manner, to

the changes. Character development is not a
requirement on every player or character, but is a
potential play feature existing within the structure
of the game. It is perfectly possible, for example, to
play World of Warcraft, by creating a character,
and then merely touring the world without ever
acquiring additional equipment or experience
points. Similarly, a player of Monopoly could simply
move their piece around and around the board
without ever buying a property. But the intent of
development is there, even if ignored in some
particular play examples.
4.2 Game Master
While most participants in the games discussed are
players controlling a single character, all of the
forms also have other participants who control the
game world beyond the players characters. These
participants are typically referred to as game
masters. The exact duties of the game master vary,
with the power relationship between players and
game master varying between game to game and
even at different points within the same game.
Game master functions also vary, making defining
them difficult, although some attempts have been
made such as Stenros and Hakkarainen (2003) and
Tychsen et al. (2005). Whatever their exact nature,
the viewpoint of a game master is very different to
that of the players. While players are primarily
concerned with their particular character, game
masters are primarily responsible for presenting
the world to the players, elaborating story elements
and adjudicating results. This is also the case where
the game master is represented by a game engine
in a digital role-playing game. Where there is
extensive use of props the game masters are
responsible for the selection and positioning of
these. Even in pervasive games; game masters will
often place game objects within the real world,
structuring and controlling it according to the
needs of the game.
The presence of a game master helps differentiate
role-playing games from other forms of character
based games, such as board games where a player
controls a single character, for example Zombies!!,
and from childrens games, such as cops and
robbers. The game master may be called upon to
adjudicate outcome of events in he game world,
and will rely upon a rule system to do so.
However, that rules system does not necessarily
include any quantitative representation of
characters or game world or include random
resolution of any kind.
13
4.3 Treatment of Space

Role-playing games consistently make use of a
fictional game world, and this element is found in
many of the definitions discussed in section 2. Yet it
can hardly be said that role-playing games are
unique in this. Many, if not most, games are set
apart from the real world by the placement of their
action in a fictional world. However, role-playing
games make use of the fictional world in a manner
that is consistent and distinctive, although not one
which is unique to them. This can be seen both in
the parts of the game world encompassed within
the game and the means by which characters can
interact with that game world.
Most game forms are limited, by their structure, in
the amount of the game world that the players can
experience. This is true of both digital and nondigital games. A military board game covers a fixed
amount of territory. Asteroids is set in a small part
of an asteroid field. Cluedo, in both digital and nondigital forms, is limited to a single house. Play can
never proceed beyond these limits. Non-digital
role-playing games are under no such fixed
restrictions. They offer the promise (if rarely
fulfilled) of the ability to go anywhere and do
anything within the game world. The players and
game master are free to investigate the entirety of
their imaginary universe as they please. Even if the
play of the game is currently geographically very
limited within the game world (perhaps even to a
single building or even room) this is a conscious
choice of some or all of the participants, not
inherent in the structure of the game and could
potentially change at any moment. This concept is
touched upon by Young (2005) in his discussion of
game mastering styles, but not investigated there
in great depth.
Digital role-playing games are nowhere near as
free, being almost always limited to the pre-created
game content. Indeed this has lead Schut (2003, p.
10) to suggest: maybe we should use [Janet]
Murrays term and call digital game narratives
participatory stories. Even then digital roleplaying games tend to encompass a high
proportion of the imaginary world, higher than
first person shooters, perhaps equalled by
adventure games and some 3D platform games,
such as Ratchet and Clank, Jax and Daxter and Beyond
Good and Evil. Such games closely resemble roleplaying games but lack the character development
aspect. The need for pre-play preparation of the
graphical representation of the accessible areas of
the game world should not be considered a hard
and fast limit on digital role-playing games. As
technology improves the ability to present
interesting, non-pregenerated, space will improve,

bringing to the digital the possibilities currently
only available in the non-digital. Movement in this
direction can be seen in the recently released game
Hellgate: London.
Not only do role-playing games allow access to
relatively large sections of the game world (and in
some forms potentially all of it), they also allow
extensive choice in how players may explore that
space. Players are generally free to choose their
path through the world (at least to an extent
noticeably greater than many other game forms)
and even revisit areas. Again, this is not true of
character based games that divide the play area
into levels (such as most first-person shooters),
where the player is restricted both in their path
through the environment and from revisiting
completed levels. Adventure games likewise tend
to move players through the world a section at a
time, limiting the ability to revisit areas. Roleplaying games, especially the non-digital forms,
then, can be viewed as treating space in a (pseudo-)
realistic manner. Characters have choice as where
they visit, what order they visit areas and whether
they wish to revisit areas, just as the players of
such games do in their real lives.
Role-playing games are obviously an example of
Murrays (2000) concept of the tangled rhizome
mode of spatial navigation in games. However,
while they allow the choice of direction she posits,
they are not alone in this. It is the scope of the
choice offered to the player(s) that sets such games
apart.
Obviously global or galactic strategy games such as
Civilization or Space Empires offer significant spatial
scope (in raw quantity at least) within the game
world and flight simulators typically present both
expansive areas and free player navigation.
However, these games are typically not character
based, and the options they present for interacting
with the world tend to be more limited than is
found in a role-playing game, as discussed in the
next section.
4.4 Interaction with the Game World
The previous section dealt with the treatment of
the game world on a macro scale. Role-playing
games also have a consistent approach to microlevel interactions with the game world.
While all games involve a configurative element
role-playing games differ in the potential scope of
the configuration available to the player from other
character based forms. Players of non-digital
games can have their character interact with the
14
game world in any way that is possible within the

limits of that world. Even digital games, limited by
current technology, tend to offer a wider range of
possibilities, usually including combat, dialogue,
object interaction, etc, than is found in most games.
Adventure games lack the combat option, firstperson shooters generally offer less rich dialogue
and object interaction, etc.
While role-playing games provide more interaction
opportunities, they tend to be generalist rather
than specialist in how they allow players to
exercise their configurative options. They may
allow many different ways of interaction with the
world (such as driving, shooting and talking) but
do not go into any in as much detail as games
dedicated to such activities. Consider a racing
game, such as Formula One Championship Edition.
Interaction with the imaginary world is limited to
partaking in races, although this may be covered in
exceptional detail. The player cannot stop racing
and start flying a plane. Non-digital (and some
digital) role-playing games will allow players the
opportunity for both (assuming they exist in the
game world) and much more, but will typically not
cover any activity in as much detail as a game
dedicated to that pursuit. While some role-playing
games may have extremely detailed coverage of
some of these (typically combat and occasionally
vehicles) this treatment does not extend to all
possible world interactions any attempt to do so
While the exact relationship between

stories and games is still debated,
role-playing games demonstrate
more story-like elements
than many other game forms.
would lead to a game too rules-heavy to be easily
playable. In a non-digital game a player may
decide to cook, paint or any other possible activity,
but the resolution of these actions will be typically
handled in a cursory manner. In general roleplaying games offer a comparatively wide choice of
configurative options, but present many of them in
a relatively abstract manner. A particular game or
particular group of players, may emphasise one or
another (such as vehicle combat) but for every one
so detailed, many are handled abstractly.
Another difference between role-playing and other
games is that typically role-playing games
(including the digital forms) place a lesser

requirement on users to provide continuous input.
In digital racing or flying games a player that
provides no input for an extended period will
likely crash. Most first person shooters require
players to be constantly on their guard (at least
during times when the game allows player input).
Conversely a role-playing game typically allows its
player large sections of time when they can choose
how much input they will give. Players have at
least partial control over the balance between
configurative and interpretive in their approach to
the game.
4.5 Narrative Backing
Role-playing games typically demonstrate strong
narrative influences. While the exact relationship
between stories and games is still debated, roleplaying games demonstrate more story-like
elements than many other game forms. The history
of the game world and the narrative support for ingame tasks is more apparent in role-playing games.
Making sense of the game play in these games
requires an understanding of the wider game
world. For example, in Asteroids a player is not
told, nor do they need to know to play the game,
what the social structure of the game world is, how
interstellar travel world or what race the pilot of
their ship is. In a science fiction role-playing game
all these elements are likely to be at least known to
the player, and possibly important to the actual
game-play, as discussed by Tychsen et al. (2006).
Role-playing games introduce this element as a
consequence of their individualisation of the
characters and their presentation of events in the
game world. In fact it could be argued that the
narrative elements in role-playing game are a result
of other, defining, elements and that it is a
corollary, not a necessary element in itself. In
essence, role-playing games cause narratives to
emerge on a running basis, they do not contain
narratives as such.
Players of role-playing games experience a
sequence of (typically) related events. These can be
said to form a narrative, of some sort, in much the
same way that narratives are formed from real life
experience. That the traditional definition of story
from narrative theory, for example Bal (1997), may
not apply to role-playing games is beside the
point, the storylike element is commonly strong
in role-playing games. This can be seen both in the
Of course, the term first-person shooter is not strongly defined either and the games that have that label
applied to them vary greatly. Some do offer extensive dialogue choices, etc, but there does not appear to be a
game which offers all the features here identified for role-playing games yet is commonly termed a first person
shooter.
15
presentation of events, their reception by players,

and in the common provision of supporting
material, detailing the game world and events in it.
5. DEFINITION
The above discussion allows for a definition of a
role-playing game based on the analysis of existing
forms.
1. Game World: A role-playing game is a
game set in an imaginary world. Players
are free to choose how to explore the game
world, in terms of the path through the
world they take, and may revisit areas
previously explored. The amount of the
game world potentially available for
exploration is typically large.
2. Participants: The participants in the games
are divided between players, who control
individual characters, and game masters
(who may be represented in software for
digital examples) who control the
remainder of the game world beyond the
player characters. Players affect the
evolution of the game world through the
actions of their characters.
3. Characters: The characters controlled by
players may be defined in quantitative
and/or qualitative terms and are defined
individuals in the game world, not
identified only as roles or functions. These
characters can potentially develop, for
example in terms skills, abilities or
personality, the form of this development
is at least partially under player control
and the game is capable of reacting to the
changes.
4. Game Master: At least one, but not all, of
the participants has control over the game
world beyond a single character. A term
commonly used for this function is game
master, although many others exist. The
balance of power between players and
game masters, and the assignment of these
roles, can vary, even within the playing of
a single game session. Part of the game
master function is typically to adjudicate
on the rules of the game, although these
rules need not be quantitative in any way
or rely on any form of random resolution.
5. Interaction: Players have a wide range of
configurative options for interacting with
the game world through their characters,
usually including at least combat, dialogue

and object interaction. While the range of
options is wide, many are handled in a
very abstract fashion. The mode of
engagement between player and game can
shift relatively freely between
configurative and interperative.
6. Narrative: Role-playing games portray
some sequence of events within the game
world, which gives the game a narrative
element. However, given the configurative
nature of the players involvement, these
elements cannot be termed narrative
according to traditional narrative theory
It should be noted that this definition does not
provide clear boundaries. Exactly how much of the
game world is presented, how wide the choice of
interaction possibilities and how much story
element is contained vary between the forms of
role-playing game and are not amenable to precise
quantification. This leads to a blurring of the
boundaries between what is and is not a roleplaying game. However, the definition provides
very clear support for categorising games, as
discussed in the next section. The definition
specifically focuses on the structure of the games,
not on the playing styles employed within them.
This can vary greatly, from player to player and
moment to moment, ranging from convincing
acting to the purely instrumental and beyond.
The definition also, as a consequence, demonstrates
that digital role-playing games do not represent the
full spectrum of role-playing games. For example,
some role-playing games blur or even remove the
boundary between player and games master.
Digital role-playing games are more restrictive,
with the software having a non-negotiable role and
rely on quantitative character representation and
event resolution, while not allowing purely
qualitatively description or arbitrary resolution.
They also limit, in advance, what portions of the
game world the characters can engage. Where a
human game master can, on the fly, detail and
present any aspect of the game world, this cannot
be done in the digital realm, if only through the
need to prepare the graphical assets.
6. DISCUSSION
If the definition proposed above is to have use it
should at least be able to distinguish role-playing
games from similar forms. In this section a number
of game forms are examined, highlighting how the
As it may not apply to any game as suggest, for example, by Juul (2001).
16
proposed definition distinguished them from roleplaying games while previous definitions do not.
First person shooters fulfil the requirements of
many existing definitions of role-playing games.
They have participants, a game world and a
controlling power outside the players. The
stereotypical form of a Dungeons and Dragons game
finds the players involved in a dungeon-bash.
Here they move through a maze of corridors,
killing and looting as they go, This is little different
to the play of many first person shooters. Yet the
dungeon-bash is regarded as a role-playing game
and first person shooters are not. Most of the latter
lack the character development aspect, which is
crucial to role-playing games. They also typically
feature a very narrow range of options for
interacting with the game world, e.g. the option of
communication with dungeon inhabitants which,
however rarely exercised, does exist in the tabletop form. Even those digital games that do include
character development, and are said to have a roleplaying aspect, lack some other element covered in
the proposed definition. For example, Deus Ex,
follows the traditional first person shooter
treatment of space, dividing it into levels and not
allowing players free return to already explored
areas. One first person shooter which does allow
free exploration and revisitation is System Shock 2.
It also has player controlled character development
and extensive means of interaction with the
environment. Where it fails in meeting the
definition is that the environmental interaction is
not quite what would be found in a role-playing
game. In particular, the player has no choice in the
interaction with non-player characters the player
is spoken to, but never speaks back. Interacting via
dialogue is an important aspect of role-playing
games, as noted in the definition.
Adventure games, such as Monkey Island or Syberia,
on the other hand, make extensive use of dialogue
interaction including, most importantly, giving the
player some choice of dialogue options. These
games lack character development as it is found in
role-playing games, often limit the players
navigation of space and usually limit interaction
with the world to dialogue and certain object
interactions.
Other examples can be found of games which are
similar to, but not quite, role-playing. Such games
fit within various of the existing definitions but are
excluded by the one presented here. 3D
platformers have been discussed above. Cops and
robbers, and other similar childrens games, lack a
directing influence which could be labelled a game
master. Board games where players take a single

character role, such as Zombies and Talisman, lack a
game master, impose strict limits on the areas of
the game world that can be visited during play and
have limited options for interacting with the game
world. The existence of a game master (or
equivalent) by itself is not enough to make a game
a role-playing game. Consider certain double blind
board war games. A double blind game is where
players have a copy of the game board o which
they manoeuvre their pieces. The have only limited
knowledge of the movements of the other player.
These games may involve a referee, who
adjudicates the action and informs players of
events outside their control. In fact in one example,
Flat Top, the referee is called a game master. Such
games have participants, a game world and a game
master, yet are clearly not role-playing games. It
should also be noted that some of these games,
such as variants of Squad Leader, place players in
control of pieces representing individual people
(although admittedly more than one). These games
also differ from role-playing games in the type of
interaction with the world allowed, being purely
combat-focussed.
7. CONCLUSION
Role-playing games, although they exist in a
variety of forms, which include great differences in
player number and cross the divide between the
digital and non-digital, possess a range of common
features that allow them to be distinguished from
other game types. Existing definitions have
typically not captured this distinction, typically
being concerned with the aspect of role-playing or
specific types of role-playing games. An analysis of
various examples of role-playing games in this
paper has enabled the identification of a range of
characteristics. On that basis a definition for them
could be proposed which is much more successful
at separating role-playing games from other,
similar, game forms.
Much of the outline of the proposed definition is
not new, sharing game world, characters and game
masters with many existing definitions. However
the analysis has shown that not only are these
important components of a role-playing game but
that such a game includes each in a very specific
manner, which together provides an a means of
identifying this game form. Particularly important
to the proposed definition is the treatment of
character, space and interaction within a roleplaying game. Characters can develop, under
player control, within the game world and through
them the player is able to interact with that world
17
in a great variety of ways and throughout the

imaginary geography. A cornerstone of roleplaying is the range of imagination it encourages.
This recognises one aspect of role-playing games,
seen in previous definitions, in that they allow
players, through their character to do whatever
would be possible in the imaginary world of the
game. Of course this misses the role of the game
master, and other important points, such as
character development, but it does highlight the
range and depth of interaction possible within the
game world. This use of space and the possibilities
for players to explore the game world, in both
geographic and configurative terms, have been
important omissions from previous definitions.
The role-playing format continues to evolve and
mutate. The analysis presented here does not
attempt to exhaustively cover all the existing forms
(for example, mobile-phone based massively multiplayer role-playing games were not considered).
The definition given above is a presented as an
advance, not the final word. While our contention
is that it covers existing forms it would need to be
revisited and possibly revised as new ones emerge.
Having proposed a definition for this idiosyncratic
game form it is worth giving some thought to how
this relates to definitions of games in general. Roleplaying games are identified as a limit case in by
Salen and Zimmerman (2004, p.81) in their
discussion of the definition of a game (although it
should be noted Lindley (2005, figure 2) places
them in the middle of the spectrum of games). If
role-playing games are accepted as games (as Salen
and Zimmerman further state (2004, p.81), to not so
accept them would be: a ridiculous conclusion),
it is necessary to ask what such acceptance means
for the definition of a game. While the purpose of
this paper is not to enter into a discussion of a
broad definition of games, one particular issue
arising from the current examination of roleplaying games deserves further examination that
of outcomes.
Many definitions of a game include the need for
some defined goal or outcome, including those of
Parlett (1999), Abt (1970), Suits (1990), Costikyan
(1994) and Salen and Zimmerman (2004). The
definition of a game proposed by Salen and
Zimmerman (2004, p.80), for example, includes a
quantifiable outcome. As we have discussed above
quantitative elements are not a requirement for a
game to be a role playing game in any sense,
outcome included. Even in role-playing games
with quantitative aspects, the outcome is generally
not subject to exact quantification. Role-playing
games are able to proceed indefinitely. Costikyans
(1994) argument that they have continuous goals is

tenuous at best all human activity can said to
have a goal, even something as simple as passing
the time. Including this in a definition tells us
nothing, as it does not separate games from other
activities.
It could be argued, as Juul (2003, p.40) does, that
Pen and paper role-playing games are not normal
games because with a human game master, their
rules are not fixed beyond discussion. Following
this one could further argue that role-playing
games are not a useful test for general game
definitions such as Juuls (2003, p.35) classic game
model:
A game is a rule-based formal system with a
variable and quantifiable outcome, where
different outcomes are assigned different
values, the player exerts effort in order to
influence the outcome, the player feels
attached to the outcome, and the
consequences of the activity are optional and
negotiable.
However, that would almost leave such definitions
circular- they are defining the games which meet
their definition, and consigning other games to a
half-real status. That Juul qualified the title of his
model with the term classic implies that a more
general game model may exist. Perhaps that more
general model should not have such an emphasis
on outcome.
Exactly how such a model is formulated is not of
immediate concern here. But what this does
demonstrate is the utility of role-playing games in
testing more general games theory. Whether they
are regard as typical games or not is less important,
although limit cases, as they are termed by Salen
and Zimmerman (2004) are always a good test of a
theory. Their peculiar nature, similar but not the
same as other game forms, existing in both the
digital and non-digital worlds, the broad scope
they give for interacting with the game world, both
lends them a fascination for their players and
makes them a fertile field for research. In their
diversity they display many faces but, to wrench a
quote from Campbell perhaps beyond its limit, we
may here have started to approach the one face
behind the many.
REFERENCES
(1)
Abt, C., 1970, Serious Games, New York: Viking

Press.
(2)
Bal, M., 1997, Narratology, 2nd ed. Toronto,.

University of Toronto Press.
(3)
Copier, M, 2005. Connecting Worlds.

18
Fantasy Role-Playing Games, Ritual Acts

and the Magic Circle. In DIGRA (Digital
Games Research Association) Changing Views:
Worlds in Play. Vancouver, Canada 16-20 June
2005. [Online]. Available at: http://
www.digra.org/
(4)
(5)
dl/db/06278.50594.pdf [accessed 20
December 2007].
Costikyan, G., 1994. I have no words & I must
Design. In K. Salen & E. Zimmerman, eds.,
The Game Design Reader, Cambridge: MIT
Press, 2006, p.192-210.
(14) Jonsson, S., Waern, A., Montola, M. & Stenros,

J., 2007. Game Mastering a Pervasive Larp.
Experiences from Momentum. In Magerkurth,
Carsten & al. (eds.): Proceedings of the 4th
International Symposium on Pervasive
Gaming Applications, p.31-39., June 11.-12.
Salzburg, Austria.
(15) Juul, J., 2001. Games Telling Stories. [Online].
Game Studies, 6(1), Available at: http://
gamestudies.org/0101/juul-gts/ [accessed 30
December 2007].
(6)
Dormans, J, 2006. On the Role of the Die: A brief

ludologic study of pen-and-paper roleplaying
games and their rules. [Online]. Game Studies,

6(1), Available at: http://
gamestudies.org/0601/articles/dormans
[accessed 20 December 2007].
(16) Juul, J., 2003. The Game, The Player, The

World: Lookings for a Heart of Gameness. In
DIGRA (Digital Games Research Association)
Level Up. Utrecht, The Netherlands 4-6
November 2003. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.digra.org/dl/db/05163.50560
(7)
Duchenaut, N.; Yee, N.; Nickell, E. & Moore,

R. , (2006), Alone Together? Exploring the
Social Dynamics of Massively Multiplayer
Online Games. In Conference proceedings on
human factors in computing systems CHI 2006,
pp.407-416., Montreal, Canada.. April 22-27
(17) Henriksen, T., 2002. Hvordan kan man lre

gennem fiction? Teoretiske perspektiver p
lring gennem deltagelse i rollespilsformidlet
fiktion, specialesamlingen, Det kongelige
bibliotek, Institut for psykologi, Kbenhavns
Universitet.
(8)
Edwards, R., 2001. GNS and other matters of

role-playing theory. [Online]. Avilable at:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/
(9)
Fine, G., 1983. Shared Fantasy: Role Playing

Games as Social Worlds. Chicago University of
Chicago Press.
(18) Kim, J., 2003. Story and Narrative Paradigms

in Role-Playing Games. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/
theory/narrative/paradigms.html [accessed
30 December 2007].
(10) Gade, M., 2003. Interaction: The Key Element

of Larp. In M. Gade, L. Thorup & M. Sander,
eds. When Larp Grows Up - Theory and Methods
in Larp p.66-71. [Online] Available at: http://
www.liveforum.dk/kp03_book/ [accessed 20
December 2007].
(11) Hallford, N. & Hallford, J., 2001. Swords &
Circuity A Designer's Guide to Computer Role
Playing Games. Roseville: Prima Publishing.
(12) Henry, L., 2003. Group Narration: Power,
Information, and Play in Role Playing Games.
[Online]. Available at: http://
www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/lizpaper-2003/ [accessed 30 December 2007].
(13) Hetland, M., 2004. The
rec.games.frp.advocacy FAQ: Part I: The
Three-fold Model. [Online]. Available at:
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/
Rec/rec.games.frp.advocacy/2006-05/
msg00001.html [accessed 30 December 2007].
(19) Koster, R., 2002, Online World Timeline.

[Online]. Available at: www.raphkoster.com/
gaiming/mudtimeline.shtml [accessed 20
December 2007].
(20) Lindley, C., 2005. The Semiotics of Time
Structure in Ludic Space as a Foundation for
Analysis and Design, [Online]. Game Studies,
5(1), Available at: http://
www.gamestudies.org/0501/lindley/
(21) Lortrz, S., 1979, Role-Playing. Different Worlds,
1, p. 3641.
(22) Lynch, S., 2000. Border Dispute: Drawing the
Line Between LARP and Tabletop Gaming.
[Online] Available at: http://www.rpg.net/
news+reviews/columns/
Live_Wires_Scott_12_1.html. [accessed 320
December 2007].
(23) Mackay, D., 2001. The Fantasy Role-Playing
Game: A New Performing Art. London:
Macfarland.
(24) Mkel, E., Koistinen, S., Siukola, M. &
Turunen, S., 2005. The process model of role19
playing. In Bckman, P. & Hutchison R. eds.

Dissecting LARP, p.205-236. [Online].
Available at: http://knutepunkt.laiv.org/
dissectionlarp.pdf [accessed 20 December
2007].
(25) Mann, J., 1956. Experimental Evaluations of
Role Playing. Psychological Bulletin, 53(3), pp.
227-34.
(26) Mason, P., 2004. In Search of the Self, A Survey
of the First 25 Years of Anglo-American RolePlaying Theory. In M. Montola, M. & J.
Stenros, J. eds. Beyond Role and Play: Tools, Toys
and Theory for Harnessing the Imagination,
Helsinki: Ropecon, p.1-14. [Online]. Available
at: http://www.ropecon.fi/brap/brap.pdf
(27) Montola, M., 2003. Role-Playing as Interactive
Construction of Subjective Diegeses. In M.
Gade, L. Thorup & M. Sander, eds. When Larp
Grows Up - Theory and Methods in Larp p.80-89.
[Online] Available at: http://
December 2007].
(28) Montola, M., 2007. Tangible Pleasures of
Pervasive Role-playing. In DIGRA (Digital
Games Research Association) Situated Play.
Tokyo, Japan 24-28 September 2007. [Online].
Available at: http://www.digra.org/dl/db/
07312.38125.pdf [accessed 20 December 2007].
(29) Morgan, C., 2002. The Alchemy of Role-Playing.
[Online]. Avilable at: http://www.indierpgs.com/files/ac001.pdf [accessed 20
December 2007].
(30) Murray, J, 2000. Hamlet on the Holodeck; The
Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. Cambridge
MA MIT Press.
(31) Padol, L., 1996. Playing Stories, Telling Games:
Collaborative Storytelling in Role-Playing Games.
[Online]. RECAP: Publications. Available at:
http://www.recappub.com/games.html
(32) Parlett, D., 1999, The Oxford History of Board
Games, New York: Oxford University Press.
kpbook/kp-book-2006.pdf [accessed 20
December 2007].
(35) Pohjola, M., 2003. Manifesto of the Turku
School. In M. Gade, L. Thorup & M. Sander,
eds. When Larp Grows Up - Theory and Methods
in Larp p.34-39. [Online] Available at: http://
December 2007].
(36) Pohjola, M., 2003. Autonomous Identities:
Immersion as a Tool for Exploring,
Empowering and Emancipating Identities. In
M. Montola, M. & J. Stenros, J. eds. Beyond
Role and Play: Tools, Toys and Theory for
Harnessing the Imagination, Helsinki: Ropecon,
p.81-96. [Online]. Available at: http://
www.ropecon.fi/brap/brap.pdf [accessed 20
December 2007].
(37) Psychodrama, 2007. psychodrama. (n.d),
[Online]. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1).
Available at: http://dictionary.reference.com/
browse/psychodrama [accessed 30 December
2007]
(38) Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E., 2004. Rules of
Play. Cambridge: MIT Press.
(39) Schut, K., 2003. Technology tells a tale: digital
games and narrative. In DIGRA (Digital
Games Research Association) Level Up.
Utrecht, The Netherlands 4-6 November 2003.
[Online]. Available at: http://www.digra.org/
dl/db/05150.17157 [accessed 20 December
2007].
(40) Stenros, J. & Hakkarainen, H., 2003. The
Meilahti Model. In M. Gade, L. Thorup & M.
Sander, eds. When Larp Grows Up - Theory and
Methods in Larp p.56-64. [Online] Available at:
http://www.liveforum.dk/kp03_book/
(41) Suits, B., 1990. Grasshopper: Games, Life and
Utopia, Boston: David R. Godine.
(42) Taylor, T., 2006. Play Between Worlds: Exploring
Online Game Culture. Cambridge: MIT press.
(33) Perrin, S., Turney, R., Hnederson, S. & James,

W., 1980. Runequest, 2nd ed, Albany:
Chaosium.
(43) Tychsen, A, Hitchens M., Brolund T. &

Kavaklli, M., 2005. The Game Master.In the
Second Australasian Conference on Interactive
Entertainment. Sydney, Australia, 23-25
November 2005. p.215-222
(34) Petterson, J., 2006. The Art of Experience. In T.

Fritzon & T. Wrigstad, eds. Role, Play, Art:
Collected Experiences of Role-Playing.
Stockholm: Freningen Knutpunkt. Ch. 10.
[Online]. Available at: http://jeepen.org/
(44) Tychsen, A, Hitchens M., Brolund T. &

Kavaklli, M., 2006. Live Action Role-Playing
Games: Control, Communicatiopn,
Storytelling and MMORPG Similarities. Games
and Culture, 1(3), p. 252-275.
20
(45) Tychsen A., Newman K., Brolund T. &

Hitchens M., 2007. Cross-format analysis of
the gaming experience in multi-player roleplaying games. In DIGRA (Digital Games
Research Association) Situated Play. Tokyo,
Japan 24-28 September 2007. [Online],
Available at: http://www.digra.org/dl/db/
07311.39029.pdf [accessed 20 December 2007].
(46) White Wolf, 2005. Minds Eye Theatre. Stone
Mountain, White Wolf.
(47) Young, J., 2005. Theory 101: The Impossible
Thing Before Breakfast. [Online] Available at:
http://ptgptb.org/0027/theory101-02.html
Michael Hitchens, PhD, is a senior lecturer and the
director of teaching and learning in the Division of
Information and Communication Sciences at
Macquarie University in Sydney. His research interests
in the area of games include storytelling and player
experience.
Anders Drachen, PhD, is a postdoctoral research
fellow at the Center for Computer Games Research, IT
University of Copenhagen. He works on game
experience, empirical analysis of games, and game
player interaction, as well as on interactive storytelling
and quantitative analysis of player.
21

The Many Faces of Role-Playing Games PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Many Faces of Role-Playing Games PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

International Journal of Role-Playing - Issue 1